Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The means of making physical evidence proof is forensic sciencexe2x80x94the application of science to legal processes, the application of science to crime fighting. The defense attorneys may persuade juries to find reasonable doubt, and suspects who had credible alibis. However, the physical evidence, DNA, is the silent, definite witness. Heralded as the most powerful and discriminating method of identifying the source of biological evidence available to the criminal justice system, forensic DNA testing has evolved both in the technologies it uses and its principles and theories to promote the reliability and courtroom admissibility. The development of DNA technology furthers the search for truth by helping police and prosecutors in the fight against the crime. Increasingly accepted, DNA technology is now widely used by police, prosecutors, defense counsel and courts in the United States.
To ensure the courtroom admissibility, DNA scientific evidence involves two general considerations: the acceptance of the science itself, called scientific validity, and the proficiency of expert witness. Furthermore, DNA scientific evidence must includes the analysis fact, principles, theories and the underlying data. Scientific facts, principles, and theories are presented and explained to the jury through expert testimony. Expert witnesses testify according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. Judges determine the scientific validity of scientific facts, principles, and theories. Judges are the gatekeepers to eliminate expert witnesses whose work is not scientific, peer reviewed, published, tested, or subjected to normal scientific scrutiny.
Forensic DNA testing properly applied is generally accepted as admissible under Fryel8 or Daubertl9 standards. As stated in the National Research Council""s 1996 report on DNA evidence, xe2x80x9cThe state of the profiling technology and the methods for estimating frequencies and related statistics have progressed to the point where the admissibility of properly collected and analyzed DNA data should not be in doubt.xe2x80x9d According to the Case Studies in Use of DNA Evidence, 46 States admit DNA evidence in criminal proceedings. In 43 States, courts have ruled on the technology, and in 3 States, statutes require admission. DNA Evidence Admission in Criminal Trials by State is as follows:
The courtroom admissibility of the DNA scientific evidence requires that courts scrutinize the proposed testimony to determine its suitability for use at trial. It is the responsibility of the litigators to help the trier of the fact to recognize the basis and reliability of the experts"" opinions.
The problems are that in a jury trial, the judge determines legal issues, and the jury determines the facts; in a non-jury trial, the judge determines both. The jury system relies on the common sense of the individual juror to balance the rational and emotional content of the information presented by the parties by comparing it on the basis of their personal life experience and their personal balance of rational and emotional factors.
As used in the legal phrase xe2x80x9cfinding of facts and conclusions of law,xe2x80x9d the term xe2x80x9cfactxe2x80x9d does not refer to the actual, underlying facts, but only to those facts that were presented by the parties as admissible evidence at trial. The judge uses these facts to make decisions.
Close cooperation between litigators and experts is crucial, because the litigators must determine what scientific information a party presents, and the expert determines how to explain it.
Thus, the expert witness needs not only understand the science that they wish to present, but they should be able to apply it to the facts of the case, understand the needs and viewpoint of their audience, translate scientific facts and opinions accurately from professional scientific terminology so that the trier of fact will comprehend it, and recall the testimony at the time of the decision making.
The underlying definition of the expert witness is provided in Sections 702 of the Federal Law of Evidence and in the corresponding definitions of the Law of Evidence in every State: (Revised) Rule 702. Testimony by Experts (Revised Aug. 8, 1998, by the National Commission on Uniform State Laws, and submitted to the Federal Judicial Council). If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
(a) General rule. A witness may testify in the form of opinion or otherwise if the following are satisfied.
1. Basis for testimony. The testimony is based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
2. Assistance to trier of fact. The testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand evidence or determine a fact at issue.
3. Qualification of witness. The witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education as an expert in the scientific, technical, or other specialized field.
4. Reasonable reliability. The testimony is based upon principles or methodology which is reasonably reliable as established under subdivision (b), (c), or (e).
5. Reliably applied to facts of case. The witness has applied the principles or methodology reliably to the facts of the case
(b) Reliability deemed to exist. A principle or methodology is deemed reasonably reliable if its reliability has been established by controlling legislation or judicial decision.
(c) Presumption of reliability. A principle or methodology is presumed to be reasonably reliable if it has substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community. A party may rebut the presumption by proving that it is more probable than not that the principle or methodology is not reasonably reliable as provided in subdivision (e).
(d) Presumption of unreliability. A principle or methodology is presumed not to be reasonably reliable if it does not have substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community. A party may rebut the presumption if it is more probable than not that the principle or methodology is reasonably reliable as provided in subdivision (e).
(e) Other reliability factors. When determining the reliability of a principle or methodology, the court shall consider all relevant additional factors, which may include:
1. Testing. The extent to which the principle or methodology has been tested;
2. Research methods. The adequacy of research methods employed in testing the principle or methodology;
3. Peer review. The extent to which the principle or methodology has been published and subjected to peer review;
4. Rate of error. The rate of error in the application of the principle or methodology;
5. Experience of expert. The experience of the witness as an expert in the application of the principle or methodology; and
6. Acceptance within the field. The extent to which the field of knowledge has substantial acceptance within the relevant scientific, technical, or specialized community.
Expert witness needs to be able to communicate with at least five types of audiences: their clients"" attorneys, the opposing attorneys, the judge, the jury and with other experts for both sides. The present situation could be improved if professional experts would put more emphasis on scientific content than on adversarial rhetoric, and if counsel would more frequently use active scientists as scientific experts and for evaluating expert reports rather than specialists in persuasion.
Additionally, during a trial and the deliberations that follow it, jurors have two tasks: to understand and to evaluate the evidence. The jurors are expected to learn new information under the adverse conditions in a limited amount of time. The information is presented in a question and answer format between the attorney and the expert or witness, and the jurors are only observers of the interchange. They are not allowed to ask questions and may not be allowed to take notes. If a juror does not understand the information, did not hear something, or lost the train of thought, there is no opportunity to let the witness or attorney know. The information will be lost unless it is repeatable.
Expert witness must understand the science and apply to the facts of the case and to repeat DNA scientific evidence. These cover sample management, chain of custody, protocols, forms, laboratory casework, test results, quality issues, data interpretation, proficiency of laboratory scientists, security, privacy, review, reporting and archival. Errors include but not limited to incomplete chain of custody, wrong tests, scheduled procedure not performed, no testing chronology, no details of supervisory oversight, no signature, wrong samples used to test, samples contaminated or damage, improperly stored/handled, sample lost, test failure and lost/erased casework documents. DNA scientific evidence shall be collected and preserved from contamination. Most importantly, they shall be preserved from the DNA of the known blood sample of the defendants taken from them while in custody. To correctly, uniformly and repetitively validate and present DNA scientific evidence becomes difficult, time-consuming and personal chores. The degree of the admissibility of DNA scientific evidence becomes arbitrary assessment among the forensic community.
The proposal goal relates generally to courtroom admissibility, but specifically to electronic quality system to monitor and track where, who and when the quality deteriorates in forensic DNA laboratories.
Therefore, the invention provides a method to well structure DNA scientific evidence to reliably validate and to repetitively and systematically perform the following tasks:
Identify the issues
Provide relevant scientific information
Identify the relevant facts for the Jury
Provide opinions
Explain the basis of the opinions
Identify disagreements with the opposing opinions
Build credibility
This invention relates generally to the presentation contents of a courtroom testimony. The invention specifically enables an electronic record management (ERM) to reproduce the DNA scientific evidence to educate the litigators, to research the underlying facts, to re-construct the processes, to assert the reliability and credibility and to standardize the interface between the expert witnesses and the litigators.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a method to create and reproduce the DNA scientific evidence for the courtroom testimony. In order to achieve this object, the invented method involves both specially designed computer network architecture that includes at least a computer server and at least a computer client, and the software to execute on every computer client.
The design and function of the server and client software are based on the conception of Electronic Case Folder (ECF)xe2x80x94the organization of forensic DNA laboratory data in a logical sequence. ECF allows to store data and data processing informationxe2x80x94who, where, when, how and what was performed on data addition or modification. This conception is realized in both database design and application""s business rules that are generally implemented in a graphical user interface. ECF data are: initial package of forensic DNA samples, laboratory specimens, chain of custody, processing methods, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), processing results, notes, reports and peer reviews. SOP is set of instructions of which text is for laboratory scientists and directives are commands to issue to computer. Major features of the ECF are the access rules, the rule of data classification, the rule of numerating ECF contents, the rules of the content modification and the rules of the data archiving/retrieving.
ECF archival and retrieval completes the life cycle of electronic records and enable the reproduction of forensic DNA scientific evidence.
The computer server has two databasesxe2x80x94the production database and archival database. Both databases have the same data structure in those parts concerning the ECF of the DNA scientific evidence, i.e. the informational schemas of the ECF are identical in both production and archival databases. The computer server performs the operations of data archiving and retrieving upon the request of the computer clients. Computer server is able to authenticate computer clients and to provide their interaction with the production database.
The computer client has user interface to allow users to log in and to be authenticated by the computer server. The user interface enables the collection of the DNA scientific evidence in integral, traceable, searchable and auditable form. It provides means to search, sort and analyze forensic DNA scientific evidence.
Further in accordance with this invention, user interface provide means to select the ECF of the DNA scientific evidence to archive or extract and then to initiate the server procedures of data archiving to or retrieving from the archival database.
Still further in accordance with this invention, the user interface allows to select and generate the printed output of text, number and images from the content of ECF for the courtroom testimony.
The primary object of this invention is to provide a method that enables the creation and the reproduction of forensic DNA scientific evidence to standardize the presentation of the courtroom testimony.
Other objects that this invention accomplishes:
1. Create the basis for testimony;
2. Provide validation method;
3. Facilitate trier to understand the DNA scientific evidence;
4. Qualify the knowledge, skill, experience and interpretation;
5. Define the reasonable reliability of the DNA scientific evidence;
6. Assist trier to apply the defined reliability of the DNA scientific evidence to the facts of the case;
7. Increase courtroom admissibility of forensic DNA scientific evidence;
8. Archive digital DNA case permanently.
Advantages
1. Document the research methods in testing the principle and methodology;
2. Establish a standard for the quality assurance that validates the scientific work;
3. Define goals, objectives, rules and procedures involving testing and modeling;
4. Evaluate and determine the performance and outcome of the research methods, the standard, goals, objectives, rules and procedures;
5. Enable the scientific work to abide by regulation;
6. Enable the repeatability of the scientific work;
7. Enable the design of the research methods, the standard, goals, objectives, rules and procedures to achieve the purposes of cost savings, risk management, safety, and quality.
Further objects and advantages of this invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.